Adjudication No. 1375 (adjudicated December 2007) [2007] APC 32

Adjudication No. 1375 (adjudicated December 2007)

The Australian newspaper has a long-standing and passionate commitment to highlighting issues affecting the Indigenous community and improving conditions within that community. As part of this commitment the Weekend Australian published an article in its 18 August edition, headed Girls who become mums at age of 12. This article referred to the federal government's intervention in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities that cast 'a spotlight on cases of sexual abuse'. It discussed the case of two named Aboriginal girls. One of the girls was 16 at the time of the interview; the other was 13. This girl had become pregnant after having sex with her boyfriend who was 14 at the time.

Jane Simpson complained to the Australian Press Council that the newspaper should not have published the name of the 13 year old claiming that it would not have done so 'had she been a white middle class girl'.

The newspaper, in its response, claimed that the article was 'a sympathetic portrayal of the plight of young aboriginal women and the sadness surrounding their exposure to sex at such a young age'; that there was no legal restriction on naming the girl; that she was identified with the informed consent of the girl's aunt who had been authorised by the girl's mother to speak with the reporter; and that there was no violation of her privacy.

The complainant said that she did not doubt that the story was in the public interest as claimed by the newspaper. However, she doubted 'the need to reveal the child's name'. She also queried whether genuine permission was given to the newspaper to do the story. She was also concerned that the girl would go through life 'with, potentially, the whole world knowing that she was pregnant under the age of 13'.

The Council believes that the newspaper had taken adequate care to obtain consent from all named parties.

Nonetheless, the issue of whether the name of the girl should have been published is a highly difficult one. If a criminal prosecution had ensued, the newspaper would have been prohibited by law from publishing her name. If the rationale underpinning the prohibition is to protect the interest of the young girl, that rationale should inform the newspaper in deciding whether to publish her name or not where no charges had been laid. That decision should be based on compelling justification that, in the circumstances of this case, has not been made out. The Council is not convinced that the story would have been less powerful in its impact if the girl's identity had not been divulged. On the issue of the girl's identification alone, the Council upholds the complaint.